Carville is carrying someone's water.

[madfloridian]

Not sure who exactly. McJoan's diary at Kos thinks it might be Rahm's water. But she is not sure. Speculating. She asks if Carville is Rahm's sockpuppet.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/15/154338/08

"Obviously James Carville is not a stupid man. He knows he didn't invent the 50-state strategy and that this line that they didn't pick up an additional 20 seats because of Dean is ridiculous. So what's the explanation? Why is he spouting these absurdities? Covering for Emanuel because he either ignored or got into the third tier of races so late? Frankly, Emanuel never imagined that we could have had 50 seat pickup this year, and he wanted to focus on the 20 races he started with, on his grand plan.

Is Carville is carrying Emanuel's water on this one? I don't know for sure, but I do know that the rest of the Dem Party establishment has credited Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy for the great success of this cycle."

And I find it amazing how fast stuff spreads when James Carville says it. Hell, he even had Harold Ford actually thinking someone asked him to run for chairman.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/638

Ford himself said he will likely run for office again, although Ford did turn down an offer by James Carville to run to replace Democratic Chairman Howard Dean."

But the really worrisome part is that Carville and his cohorts are up to so much all over the world.

Carville was working against Chavez in Venezuela. article.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/637

CARACAS, Venezuela -- It's the economia, stupid.

Venezuela's embattled private sector is banking on the colorful U.S.
political consultant James Carville to help oust leftist President Hugo
Chavez. The hire may herald an effort by the anti-Chavistas to focus more onthe issues than on personality. According to several individuals with knowledge of the matter, a group of business executives contracted with Mr. Carville this year to craft a strategy that will unify a fractious and frustrated Chavez opposition and resonate with voters in a possible recall referendum.

And let's contrast the appearances on TV of Howard Dean and James Carville.


Howard Dean very dignified and thoughtful on Fox News Sunday



Carville getting ready to crack an egg on his face on MTP

What else is there to say? What Carville is doing is getting attention. We knew something was coming.

[valerief]

1. Carville is carrying a bucketful of piss. nt

[Cha]

17. Well, there ya

go!

[rox63]

2. Carville is carrying Hillary's water

He's a Clinton guy through-and-through.

[madfloridian]

3. Well, Rahm is a Clinton guy for sure.

So it could be that.

[bklyncowgirl]

24. That's my take, Hillary wants Dean gone.

Let's assume that the Clintons assume that Dean still carries a grudge for 2004 when Bill Clinton (privately) came out against him.

Let's assume further that Hillary thinks that Dean may find it a bit hard to remain objective if his buddy and fellow war critic Al Gore get's into the race.

If you were Hillary Clinton would you want Howard Dean to run the DNC?

[PassingFair]

39. First they ignored him, then they laughed at him.

Now they're fighting him....

[madfloridian]

45. Yep, and here's a response from the DNC's Finney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2970622

Yes, fighting him. And us.

[me b zola]

53. That is what I believe is the bottom line: fighting Dean IS fighting us

IMO, this is the split in the party. The split has nothing to do with moderates vs Liberal Dems, the split has everything to do with top-down power structure vs bottom-up power structure.

Top down is authoritarian and is what the repubs use. The republican base was manufactured by their party, and those with a microphone all get their talking points--and stay on message--from the powers that be. This is what the dlc, imo, want to emulate. This is why the dlc disparages the Democratic base--they didn't create it and they can't control it.

Howard Dean, OTOH, represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. Believing that politics are people driven Dean empowers people to take control of the political process--a thing that is most frightening to republicans & DLCers.

I cringe when I hear (read) DUers repeat what the pundits tell them is a quarell between the Liberals & the moderates--nothing could be further from the truth.

[madfloridian]

54. I think you have it....inside DC versus people throughout the party....

It is a complete shift in the power base, one reason they yelling about not having primaries. They know that is Dean's goal...that we make the choice in the primaries and get the committee heads to step back from that.

Crooks and Liars has the video up now.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/15/dean-on-carville-this-is-some-kind-inside-the-beltway-silliness

As for liberalism/Centrist...Dean said someothing interesting Sunday on Fox.

Transcript:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/617

WALLACE: For all the talk now from Democratic leaders about governing from the center, there is a lot of speculation from both the right and the left that eventually the Democrats are going to show their true colors and govern as liberals.

DEAN: Well, I'll tell you something.

WALLACE: Is that going to happen? If not, why not?

DEAN: First of all, I think the words conservative and liberal are now meaningless. You have a conservative president who ran up the biggest budget deficit in the history of America. I don't know what those words mean anymore.

[blm]

59. Excatly - we are the ones who want citizen voters INFORMED while Clinton's team

believes voters are to be MANIPULATED with rhetoric while they COVERUP for BushInc, yet again.

[PurgedVoter]

4. K&R

[kimmerspixelated]

5. I don't know what's up with him.

He's covering for someone or something. Isn't his wife probably in cahoots on part of the group to be tried for warcrimes?( I can dream)....

[blm]

9. Carville knows Hillary will cover up for Bush2 the way Bill did for Bush1.

Which will keep his WIFE from being tried as a war criminal if a REAL Democrat who believes in open government were to get into the WH.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[madfloridian]

25. I think it is time to buy Parry's book.

I have been meaning to do that.

[blm]

33. Go to his site consortiumnews

I think he gets a higher profit or something if you do. Check it out. EVERYTHING going on today is rooted in what went on then - really.

The coverup wing of the Dem party HAD to keep Kerry out of the WH just like they HAVE to get rid of Dean now.

[madfloridian]

35. I did not take you seriously on this in 04, but I do now.

Too much has gone on in this party and this country. I believe it now.

[blm]

36. Getting an extra heated primary then was probably part of the picture -

because they had every intention of losing and the way McAuliffe handled the DNC during his four years alone was proof positive. Didn't matter how Gore or Kerry would win, DNC was too weakened to get their votes counted.

[madfloridian]

6. Carville gets attention...this could really start something.

We are with the party right now because Howard Dean spoke up and said What I Wanna know is what all these Democratics are doing voting for George Bush's unilateral war?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/494

And it gave us hope. If they kick him out, we stop our donations to the DNC at once. We give only to DFA.

And we have to do a lot of rethinking.

[Me.]

7. Someone

But not sure it's Rahm. Read somewhere this week that he and Carville were daggers drawn, during a good part of the campaign. I think the reason is one of the following:

1. It's part of the DLC effort to unseat Howard because they are getting less and less of the donation pie.

2. He's ticked because Dean got the job with the British Labour Party, a position Carville previously held.

[fooj]

8. I heard him give Schumer and Rahm kudos today on CNN.

FWIW.

[Me.]

11. I Thought It Was A Blah, Blah, Blah Nod To Fellow DLCers

He can't blame them all, then everyone will want to smack him down. I thought it was telling when he said "I don't care if the chair of the Alaska State Chair said Dean did a good job". I think he doesn't care about the state chairs one whit, and I betcha they know it.

[Cha]

19. And a lot of the people don't care

that he doesn't care.

[Morgana LaFey]

31. I think you're on to something

the DLC.

But I'm not at all sure that it's donations that are at risk -- but rather pure political power. Donations to the two groups come from entirely different sources. And of course Hillary and Carville are DLCers, so that fits. So is Rahm.

[annabanana]

10. Why, exactly, do people listen to him?

Why is he considered any kind of a spokesman for Democrats? How can his wife and he be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have any credibility?
Are they presumed to have shallow convictions?. . or such a remarkable love that it can overcome profound differences in philosophy?

It has to be one or the other, and frankly, I don't think either of them is such a "catch".

[Canuckistanian]

30. My view exactly

He may have connections but what has he actually accomplished since 1992?

Any triumphs? Influence on major policies? Engineered any great electoral wins? No?

Then stop paying attention to him.

[madfloridian]

43. Because so many people love Carville...think he's cute and folksy

That's why we need to pay attention to what he says.

[madfloridian]

12. Carville puts trash can on head on Crossfire.

The same Crossfire that he and Begala used to get out the word that Dean was crazy.

[Blue-Jay]

13. He's the Piss Boy?

[GeorgeGist]

14. Carville...

is not trouble by principles; eg. Mary Matlin.

[madfloridian]

15. The worst part of the Ford chairman thing...

is that Harold Ford actually believed he has been asked to run, and he was saying out loud that he would not accept the chairmanship.

He seemed unaware that Carville had no authority, just a big mouth. Harold thus embarrassed himself.

And Glenn Greenwald wrote about it.
http://www.inblogs.net/glenngreenwald/2006/11/how-myth-gets-built-into-conventional.html

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. He's carrying his wife's purse.

[txindy]

38. LOL I like the way you phrased that!

:toast:

[seabeyond]

18. clinton. a no brainer n/t

[madfloridian]

20. A few defending voices today, but very few so far.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005529449

Guess that is how it goes in the Democratic Party now.

[blm]

58. Fowler spoke out for Dean. This is GOOD. His voice carries with common sense Dems.

.

[madfloridian]

21. And someone was attacking Dean's wife on Kos today.

Making political attacks on her in her role as a doctor.

[Guaranteed]

26. ... What now? They broke a leg, and it took six weeks to heal

after she treated them?

[madfloridian]

40. It was about Medicare...

It was very poor taste to post it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. Ask PassingFair what Mark Brewer (Chair MI DC) had to say about

Carville, Rahm and Dean...

[madfloridian]

23. Carville and Matalin have powerful people behind them....

Howard Dean only has the people of the party behind him. That is it. Carville has great influence in the media because he is saying what they want to hear.

http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=5831&lang=US

"Mr. Carville is often recognized as America's best-known political consultant. His long list of demonstrated successes are acclaimed for steering political underdogs into upset winners. Beginning in 1986, with a dramatic come-from-behind success in guiding Robert Casey's gubernatorial bid over popular Lieutenant Governor, William Scranton, Carville went on to engineer upset victories for Harris Wofford and, arguably, former President Bill Clinton.

Carville's many other clients included British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Greek Prime Minister, Constantine Mitsotakis, Brazilian President, Fernando Cardoso, and President Jamil Mahaud of Ecuador. The focus of a the feature-length Academy Award nominated, "The War Room", Carville is also an author, actor, producer, talk-show host, speaker and restaurateur. He is currently working on the re-make of the 1949 Oscar award-winning movie, "All The King's Men".

Mary Matalin formerly served as assistant to President George W. Bush and counselor to Vice President, Dick Cheney, the first White House official to hold that dual title. Previously, Matalin has hosted CNN's critically acclaimed debate show, "Crossfire." As the former founder and co-chost of the Washington-based weeknight talk show, "Equal Time", which premiered in 1993, Matalin's political astuteness contributed to her show being hailed by the Knight Ridder Service as "The best talk show on television".

Matalin's ability to mix humor and hot political issues has made her a nationally recognized housewold name. She has also written for "Newsweek", the "Los Angeles Times", where her sharp wit and free-spirited political repartee were rewarded by being made the host of her own CBS Talk Radio Network, "The Mary Matalin Show". Matalin recently appeared, with Carville, on HBO's critically acclaimed series, "K Street".

[BlueEyedSon]

28. Oh, so you mean REPUBLICANS???

[BlueEyedSon]

29. Oh, so you mean REPUBLICANS???

[wiley]

27. Dean was great. He delivered big. The DLC really believes his image

is forever consigned to "the scream". I get that alot from otherwise strongly supportive Democrats. I think what is going on is that Carville and the DLC are fighting the MSM effort to portray all Democrats as Dean-like "screamers". It's very similar to what will increasingly happen to Nancy Pelosi. It's a ruthless effort to claim the moderate center for the Dems, knowing that the MSM will not relent in order to maintain tension and discord for the sole purpose of ratings. There is no individual candidate at the center of any "conspiracy". As much as the Republicans made no room for any centrists or even Bush detractors, there are Democrats who believe that the majority of Democrats and independents want to live in that moderate centrist center. Many actually do, as do Independents.

The question of your response to such an effort is what should be debated, if that's what people want to do. The unfortunate truth is that immediate or protracted withdrawal of troops from Iraq will cost lives. It is not unreasonable to think that anti-American forces will attempt to kill anyone they can during the process. They may even attempt to attack a country assisting in the withdrawal process. So, in order to prevent that from happening, the DLC and others who believe that even an airlift of forces poses great dangers are on the same side as the majority of Americans who hate the war as a big mistake - as it was and is - but who do not support immediate withdrawal.

The anti-war rapid withdrawal supporters are being stereotyped as leftist fanatics and impractical liberals. They will be used by certain people among Democratic strategists as "the other", or the alternative to their moderate centrist views. It leaves almost no ground for Republicans to define themselves, especially since a Republican's reason for being is to manipulate the economy and employed individuals in favor of corporate interests in order to get a piece of that money for themselves. Republicans could give a crap less about anyone else having access to It's politics in 2006.

So, do we fight the inevitable painting as cult of personality followers of a specific widely liberal ideology by telling the DLC to back off while we define an ever increasing number of Democrats as DINOs, or do we continue trash Democrats in conjunction with an eager to oblige corporate controlled MSM? We've been set up as the real opposition Party, in a country that only has two viable political parties. Both of those parties want to use us as the alternative, except in cases where we agree with or even help create a candidate for one or both of those parties. I will always chose the Democratic Party myself, although some of its' members are truly pissing me off. Big Tent? Bigger than anything that the Republicans will ever offer.

[dogday]

32. He can't keep the truth from coming out...

No matter what he says, Dean is the one with the plan and the vision... A progressive vision that I think maybe some might not like... I love it, it is one of the things that drove me into politics in the first place....

[scarletwoman]

34. He works for the corporatists, just like the Clintons & the Bushes.

Look at his international resume -- he's not a Democrat, he's part of the cabal of global corporate elites who aspire to bend all governments to their will.

He's a creature of the DLC, which is nothing more than a corporatist trojan horse that seeks to control the Democratic party.

Carville looks like a snake because he IS a snake. The man is poison for the common people of the world, just as he is poison for the aspirations of a people-powered Democratic party.

sw

[Uncle Joe]

37. Why is Carville smashing an egg and putting a trash can on his head?

I missed, for lack of a better word, those episodes of Meet The Mess.

[madfloridian]

41. He thought it was funny?

:shrug:

I always wondered myself.

[Swamp Rat]

42. Here ya go:

:D

[Cha]

44. Yeah, and if he were being honest

he would describe himself as being cannibalistic in action.

Thanks for the visual, Swamp!

[madfloridian]

46. Dean responds to Carville's first volley on Fox Sunday...C&L video

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/15/dean-on-carville-this-is-some-kind-inside-the-beltway-silliness/

Dean on Carville: “This is some kind inside the beltway silliness.”

[Geek_Girl]

47. My first guess would be the DLC

They've been against Dean for quite awhile. My next guess would be the Clintons but I think if Dean got the boot, there would be allot of pissed off dems blaming Hillary. And somehow I just think the Clintons are more smart than that.

[madfloridian]

48. Bolivia also? Didn't know that.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040802/hayden

"Early returns indicated an 80 percent majority in favor of repealing the existing hydrocarbons law pushed in the 1990s by the hated Sánchez de Lozada (or "Goni"), whose political consultants were the star liberal Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and former presidential campaign manager James Carville. The Washington-based Greenberg firm represents British Petroleum, one of the multinationals with billions invested in Bolivia. BP supported the referendum, along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, as did US Embassy officials, because the possible alternative--an Indian-led revolution--was even worse."

"The Greenberg firm, along with Carville, has done extensive polling of Latin American opinion and consulting for Eduardo Duhalde, whose popular support as Argentina's president fell to 8 percent after repression of antiglobalization protests in the 1990s, as well as Francisco Labatista, the candidate of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, which sent armed forces to quell the 1995 Zapatista uprising before being defeated at the polls.

It appears that the Greenberg-Carville axis attempted to export the Clinton Administration's free-trade policies to Latin America, with disastrous political results. Prompted by popular resistance from Mexico, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil, however, the Clinton-era policies are being re-examined, from the New Deal tone of this week's Bolivian referendum to the language of Senator John Kerry's platform recommendation for "review" of trade policies."

[madfloridian]

51. Interesting....

"In Bolivia, similar "meddling" provoked a political crisis, along with scores of fatalities, when Democratic consultants James Carville and Jeremy Rosner managed to hand the presidency to the incompetent and out-of-touch Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, as documented in Rachel Boynton's recently released film, Our Brand is Crisis.

Here's an idea: how about a Times story headlined "America's Carville is a Divider: Some Neighbors Resent His Style as Meddlesome."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1735

Jeremy Rosner's work can be seen at the PPI website
http://www.ppionline.org/search_results_ppi.cfm

[goclark]

49. A new book is what's coming ~

I get so sick of them selling their books on Imus.

It is Ebay TV

[madfloridian]

50. Didn't he just have a new book?

I just am tired of Imus altogether.

[Diane R]

52. So is this who was behind 'The Scream' smear? n/t

[mitchum]

55. James and Bill went up the Hill...

He's working for ClintonCo

[madfloridian]

56. A defense of Dean and criticism of Carville from unexpected source.

The New Donkey is one of the more sensible bloggers at the DLC, and I often find myself nodding in agreement with this guy. Credit where credit is due, I say.

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2006/11/carville-and-dean.html

"Carville and Dean

I was out of pocket travelling most of today, and initially missed the brouhaha over the alleged plot to get rid of Howard Dean as DNC chairman. Having now read my emails; the Ryan Lizza Plank post that seems to be the source for James Carville's suggestion that Dean be replaced by Harold Ford; and the angry reaction of the blogosphere, my first thought is:

Lordy, lordy.

I've always liked Carville, as a guy with impressive strategic and tactical instincts, and impeccable partisan credentials. And I also like Harold Ford, who I suspect was as surprised as anyone by Carville's dropping of his name.

But this is a really bad idea, at a really bad time. In the wake of Tuesday's victory, party committee chieftain Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean appear to have buried the hatchet, and there's a general sense among most Democrats that they both did their very different jobs during the campaign well enough. We do not need any purges at present, thank you."

And he ends with this:

In any event, James should get off the purge-Dean bandwagon, if indeed that's what he's riding, and focus his considerable talents on the very different challenges Democrats will face in 2008. I see nothing other than good things in the rear-view mirror of the 2006 elections.

Thanks, New Donkey.

[madfloridian]

57. So Rahm called Dean today.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/carvilles_still.html

"As James Carville continues his crusade to oust Howard Dean as DNC chair, DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel wants to concilliate.

According to sources in the DNC and DCCC, Emuanel called Dean this morning to distance himself from the tone and general tenor of Carville's remarks. In a short conversation, Emanuel acknowledged that he shared some of Carville's opinions about the DNC's priorities but said he did not share Carville's wish that Dean ought to be ousted as DNC chair.

Dean called Emanuel on election night, and the two had a friendly conversation, according to sources affiliated with both men.

When their schedules permit, Dean and Emanuel will meet privately to discuss their plans for the 2008 cycle. Both sides hope to reach, in advance, an understanding about how the Democratic party committees will fund state parties and candidate committees.

After the private meeting, the two will likely take their rapprochement public."